- Emo Love Wallpaper wallpapers
- Babe Trisha Wallpapers
- hot celeb wallpapers
- Girls wallpapers | Babe
- chargeless abe wallpapers
- Wallpapers to customize your
- Player Babe Wallpapers
- adult abe wallpapers
- Hot Girl Wallpapers. Download
- anime abe wallpapers
- cyber abe wallpapers
- abe wallpapers optimized
- Sexy Hot Babes Wallpapers
- Asian Babes Wallpapers
- Screenshots: Babe
- car and abe wallpapers
- abe wallpapers and canada
- Hollywood Babe Wallpapers,
- Babes PSP Wallpapers, WWE PSP
emotion
Nov 8, 09:52 AM
In actuality, the speed increase is only 10 percent instead of 25-39 percent.
It depends on what metric you measure the increase.
It depends on what metric you measure the increase.
MacNewsFix
Apr 14, 11:32 AM
I'm not trying to pee in Apple's Cheerios at all...but i do wonder at what point will they reach a plateau in sales growth.
Valid question. As your next statement points out, Apple is making inroads to China. They also shook up their management overseeing Japan a few years ago, and I believe that, along with the iOS halo effect, they are enjoying great growth there, too. Just look at the lines at Japanese store events.
Source URL: https://emostyles2011.blogspot.com/2011/03/babe-wallpapers.html
Visit Emo Styles for daily updated Demi Lovato Gallery
Valid question. As your next statement points out, Apple is making inroads to China. They also shook up their management overseeing Japan a few years ago, and I believe that, along with the iOS halo effect, they are enjoying great growth there, too. Just look at the lines at Japanese store events.
fivepoint
Mar 10, 06:22 PM
While Democrats and Republicans bicker back and forth about whether to 'cut' 6 billion or 60 billion, there are a few lone voices in the legislature that actually realize the problem, and are actually willing to talk about it. Rand Paul is one of these voices and he gave a great speech yesterday which I think addresses the problems far more clearly than you'll get from any Elephant or Donkey on the hill. Take a moment and read it through. Many of you don't realize just how bad the problem is, but it's not necessarily your fault. There aren't many leaders out there that are willing to be so blunt and honest about the situation and to openly admit that neither side is trying hard enough to fix it.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
gkarris
Mar 22, 11:31 AM
If you have shared responsibilities e.g. to send the kids to school (not realy cheap where I am), which takes a consierablen slap out of the salary, certain purchases might not be considered really important/essential for the family's well-being by the significant other (compared to lets sayspending the money for new clothes for the kid or a family trip). I still do it but tell her after the fact with a good justification (if possible). Works most of the time (and I am screwed if it doesn't).
I take it you are not married or in a serious long term relationship...?
Here we go with the "You said this, so you must be this..." stereotype... :rolleyes:
I know guys where even though they are the "bread winner" or contribute greatly to the funds, they have to approve EVERYTHING through the Wife - whereas the Wife can spend as she pleases....
Happy Wife, Happy Life... :eek:
Not into that type of relationship.
I take it you are not married or in a serious long term relationship...?
Here we go with the "You said this, so you must be this..." stereotype... :rolleyes:
I know guys where even though they are the "bread winner" or contribute greatly to the funds, they have to approve EVERYTHING through the Wife - whereas the Wife can spend as she pleases....
Happy Wife, Happy Life... :eek:
Not into that type of relationship.
Zigster
Sep 22, 04:22 PM
This feels like a story planted by Apple, in order to apply leverage in all the behind the scenes fighting amongst the big players.
hulugu
Nov 7, 10:00 PM
as u say, wireless drives that are running a whole OS arent too useful yet (based on current tech). but if they're storing data that only needs to be retrieved every so often, itd be well worth it.
For network storage applications it might be useful, but I think you'd really want a hard-drive and a optical drive you could plug-in even if it's a separate part.
Ideally, something like a tablet PC (iPad) that would use NAND-flash for low voltage OS applications and a hard-drive for more robust applications. The optical drive isn't as necessary for loading data (such as ripping DVDs, music, etc.)
The Tablet PC is a nice idea, but until they're small and light they will remain a niche product. I think something akin to Sony's e-book reader, but with some tablet capabilities that can be seamlessly linked into a larger system would make a real change in the market.
The machines are still used as laptop replacements, and frankly they have a different application.
For network storage applications it might be useful, but I think you'd really want a hard-drive and a optical drive you could plug-in even if it's a separate part.
Ideally, something like a tablet PC (iPad) that would use NAND-flash for low voltage OS applications and a hard-drive for more robust applications. The optical drive isn't as necessary for loading data (such as ripping DVDs, music, etc.)
The Tablet PC is a nice idea, but until they're small and light they will remain a niche product. I think something akin to Sony's e-book reader, but with some tablet capabilities that can be seamlessly linked into a larger system would make a real change in the market.
The machines are still used as laptop replacements, and frankly they have a different application.
Fofer
Mar 21, 05:45 PM
Sorry, but for me this story doesn't pass the sniff test.
Me neither. This is a weird story. I want to laugh along with it, but something doesn't ring true to me.
What if "wife said no" because "husband" spent all of his time with gadgets instead of the family? Apple sending it back (even if "free,") doesn't address the situation properly (or even politely.)
Me neither. This is a weird story. I want to laugh along with it, but something doesn't ring true to me.
What if "wife said no" because "husband" spent all of his time with gadgets instead of the family? Apple sending it back (even if "free,") doesn't address the situation properly (or even politely.)
deconai
Aug 3, 11:53 AM
But wait! Doesn't Apple's miniscule market-share mean that hackers won't target Macs because there is nothing to be gained? Better off targeting the 95% of Windows-running machines out there? I think this story proves again that the "security through obscurity" argument is just a myth. :)
Well, going on national TV and basically challenging the hacker community doesn't really qualify as obscure, now does it?
Well, going on national TV and basically challenging the hacker community doesn't really qualify as obscure, now does it?
X5-452
Mar 18, 01:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Reception to the original iPod launch was mixed. Our own forum responses are interesting to look back on, 10 years later.
At least we're all pretty consistent with our critiques of Apple product launches, hahaha.
Reception to the original iPod launch was mixed. Our own forum responses are interesting to look back on, 10 years later.
At least we're all pretty consistent with our critiques of Apple product launches, hahaha.
mfr1340
Mar 28, 02:47 PM
They dont charge you till it ships:) But I Jive with your sentiments dude...I say rewards the folks who've already placed orders
Thats why they filled 1/2 the order so they could process the cc order. Now I can sit and play with the cover untill 4/26, and I ordered it 3/18
Thats why they filled 1/2 the order so they could process the cc order. Now I can sit and play with the cover untill 4/26, and I ordered it 3/18
shtoat
Apr 14, 09:36 AM
What the hell? Since when have apple made desktop computers?
morespce54
Jul 24, 01:30 PM
i hope it comes with a battery that lasts two or three days. the last thing i'd do is read a book connected to an adapter.
LOL !!! :D
LOL !!! :D
And1ss
Apr 12, 12:20 PM
Don't worry.
If the Chinese economy keeps growing at the same rate over the next decade they will be setting up manufacturing plants in the USA to take advantage of the cheap American labour. ;)
Doubt it, American labor unions will never allow that. haha. Plus, China won't have problems finding labor in the country.
If the Chinese economy keeps growing at the same rate over the next decade they will be setting up manufacturing plants in the USA to take advantage of the cheap American labour. ;)
Doubt it, American labor unions will never allow that. haha. Plus, China won't have problems finding labor in the country.
mcrain
Mar 15, 03:33 PM
Why is that different for any other part of the federal budget? Federal $ = Federal jobs + Contractor jobs.
So a $60B cut (that isn't enough) will result in > 100K federal jobs lost and likely a similar number of first line government contractors.
Some funding results in more jobs than others. For example, cuts to Medicaid funding that are derived from reducing fraud and abuse, actually result in more jobs (enforcement). The same cuts from the military may result in the loss of some military positions, or more likely, the cutting of some program which will result in job losses.
Not all cuts are created equal, and not all spending results in the same benefit. (Tax cuts result in almost no economic benefit, but unemployment results in a large economic multiplier).
So a $60B cut (that isn't enough) will result in > 100K federal jobs lost and likely a similar number of first line government contractors.
Some funding results in more jobs than others. For example, cuts to Medicaid funding that are derived from reducing fraud and abuse, actually result in more jobs (enforcement). The same cuts from the military may result in the loss of some military positions, or more likely, the cutting of some program which will result in job losses.
Not all cuts are created equal, and not all spending results in the same benefit. (Tax cuts result in almost no economic benefit, but unemployment results in a large economic multiplier).
mrgreen4242
Aug 30, 09:35 AM
Shrug, I kind of agree with the other poster - I'm more productive working on a Windows machine, as there are less distractions. When it comes to digital media, however, Apple's the way to go.
I'm also to the point of getting a MacBook for my next computer so I can bring it to work... I am SO much more efficient on my Mac than on my work PC. It's mostly due to expose, spotlight, and the dashboard.
I work with about 4 or 5 applications all day everyday, and with expose I can switch between them quicker and more accurately, allowing me to get a better work flow going. Spotlight should be obvious; I deal with roughly 200-250 database reports regularly, but I can never find the one I want. Same for emails (during my busy time of year it's about 20 a day I have to respond to, I'm down to 5 or so now, though). Dashboard is purely for slacking off - but I can do it faster and 'waste' less time checking my email, the top stories on digg, etc.
If there was a slick docking station for the MacBook I'd have one (and two docks) for it already... I suppose the PITA connecting OS X to our domain server is also stopping me. And the fact that (I don't think) our database frontend has an OS X version ready just yet.
I'm also to the point of getting a MacBook for my next computer so I can bring it to work... I am SO much more efficient on my Mac than on my work PC. It's mostly due to expose, spotlight, and the dashboard.
I work with about 4 or 5 applications all day everyday, and with expose I can switch between them quicker and more accurately, allowing me to get a better work flow going. Spotlight should be obvious; I deal with roughly 200-250 database reports regularly, but I can never find the one I want. Same for emails (during my busy time of year it's about 20 a day I have to respond to, I'm down to 5 or so now, though). Dashboard is purely for slacking off - but I can do it faster and 'waste' less time checking my email, the top stories on digg, etc.
If there was a slick docking station for the MacBook I'd have one (and two docks) for it already... I suppose the PITA connecting OS X to our domain server is also stopping me. And the fact that (I don't think) our database frontend has an OS X version ready just yet.
thejedipunk
Aug 3, 10:08 PM
I'm glad that I'm not one of those people that spited the iPod at it's genesis. I've always wanted one of those suckers. And I do have one now. :P
Ted13
Sep 23, 12:15 PM
...Ten years from now, movies and music on physical media will largely be things of the past, much like cassette tapes are today. The change won't come right away, but it will come. If Wal-Mart wants to beat Apple at this game, it will have to introduce its own movie download service.
The problem is that Wal-Mart is incapable of doing it. Look at how stunningly successful their 88 cents per song music store was (not). If Amazon's movie store sucks so bad (considering that Amazon must employ some pretty good computer programmers), what chance does Wal-Mart have of producing something that isn't a laughing stock. Good, competent programming/infrastracture building on the level of Apple is VERY hard. Google can (usually) do it. Not too many other companies can (certainly not Microsoft).
The problem is that Wal-Mart is incapable of doing it. Look at how stunningly successful their 88 cents per song music store was (not). If Amazon's movie store sucks so bad (considering that Amazon must employ some pretty good computer programmers), what chance does Wal-Mart have of producing something that isn't a laughing stock. Good, competent programming/infrastracture building on the level of Apple is VERY hard. Google can (usually) do it. Not too many other companies can (certainly not Microsoft).
iCheddar
Oct 24, 09:06 PM
@Ivanovitchk
What's your GPU?
What's your GPU?
sfwalter
Sep 23, 09:11 AM
Who knows if the story it true or not. Regardless Walmart bully's everyone, small stores who are in its path as well as suppliers. They're some suppliers who sell merchandise at Walmart at a loss just to get on their precious shelf space.
comacnut
Mar 18, 03:55 PM
We were all just as whiny 10 years ago as we are today! Too funny.
rainydays
Nov 7, 02:36 AM
http://play.com/PC/PCs/4-/3271122/Apple_MacBook_Core_2_Duo_2GHz_512MB_RAM_13_3_Widescreen_Laptop/Product.html
Only the CPU has been changed, to a C2D.
Dude, that's the specs for the current Macbook.
Only the CPU has been changed, to a C2D.
Dude, that's the specs for the current Macbook.
Keleko
Mar 2, 08:48 AM
Today's mythical creature isn't really mythical. The Gigantopithecus is an ancient form of the ape. There is speculation that it still exists and is the reason for yeti and Big Foot sightings. I guess that is the reason for including it in a mythical creatures display.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5484933159_0f8ca13877_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5484933159/)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5484933159_0f8ca13877_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5484933159/)
SpinThis!
Nov 3, 05:10 PM
Web developers need to use approved open standards and stop using Flash as a crutch. And if by Apple's own image, you mean far superior open standards that are approved by the W3C, then yes! :rolleyes:
How is using what's often times necessary a crutch? Trying putting any kind of multimedia on your website or handling reliable file uploads and you'll quickly see why you need Flash to reach the broadest audience. Developers have been shouting to the W3C for years for what we need and HTML5 still doesn't address much of the stuff you'd rely on Flash for.
Sadly, most Flash use is gratuitously used by developers with no html standards based alternative (which is stupid to say the least) so Flash gets a bad rap but when it's done well, it blends right in. There's a reason why Yahoo, Gmail, youtube, vimeo, etc. all use flash.
How is using what's often times necessary a crutch? Trying putting any kind of multimedia on your website or handling reliable file uploads and you'll quickly see why you need Flash to reach the broadest audience. Developers have been shouting to the W3C for years for what we need and HTML5 still doesn't address much of the stuff you'd rely on Flash for.
Sadly, most Flash use is gratuitously used by developers with no html standards based alternative (which is stupid to say the least) so Flash gets a bad rap but when it's done well, it blends right in. There's a reason why Yahoo, Gmail, youtube, vimeo, etc. all use flash.
Peterkro
May 1, 07:22 PM
My wife and I are both alive and well, we only just got electricity back about an hour or so ago. Worst 4 days of our lives, but we got off lucky. Others lost everything, including themselves.
It's a MBP on wireless internet. When it hit, I was hunkered in the interior bathroom with it, the cell phone, a flashlight and two very upset cats.
Glad to hear your OK Corvus.:)
(that's not to say I don't have sympathy for those that didn't fare so well)
It's a MBP on wireless internet. When it hit, I was hunkered in the interior bathroom with it, the cell phone, a flashlight and two very upset cats.
Glad to hear your OK Corvus.:)
(that's not to say I don't have sympathy for those that didn't fare so well)
Source URL: https://emostyles2011.blogspot.com/2011/03/babe-wallpapers.html
Visit Emo Styles for daily updated Demi Lovato Gallery
.jpg)
